DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) WG Virtual Interim Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2017 3:00 - 4:30 PM UTC 1. Note well, logistics and introduction (chairs, 5 min) ======================================================== Presenters: Roman Danyliw, Tobias Gondrom Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-chairs-slides-00.pdf The chairs presented a summary of the working group's activities. Approximately 19 participants were online through-out the virtual interim meeting. 2. Use Case Discussion ====================== Presenter: Roland Dobbins Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-use-cases-draft-ietf-dots- use-cases-03-00.pdf Draft: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-03 Dobbins summarized changes in the -03 draft and the remaining tasks. The -04 draft is planned to be published on March 10th. Q: (Dave Dolson): Are the open issues on github? Q: (Andrew Mortensen): +1 A: (Roland Dobbins): No, but they could be. Q: (Tobias Gondrom): Could any interim text be published ASAP (so as to not wait until March 10 since the draft cut-off is approaching)? A: (Roland Dobbins): Yes. Q: (Andrew Mortensen): Do you anticipate any needed revisions to the architecture draft due to the planned -04 draft? A: (Roland Dobbins): Not at this time. Q: (Tiru Reddy): Does the draft discuss a multi-homing scenario? A: (Roland Dobbins): Yes, that's already covered. 3. Requirements Discussion ========================== Presenter: Andrew Mortensen Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-requirements-draft-ietf-dots- requirements-03-00.pdf Draft: draft-ietf-dots-requirements-03 Mortensen discussed the changes in the -03 draft and recent feedback on the mailing list. Comment: (Frank Xia): The notion of a "session" is mentioned in the architecture and requirements document. It would be better to define it only in one place. Comment: (Frank Xia): There don't appear to be many requirement for the data channel A: (Andrew Mortensen): We may want to remove these details and let the data model stand for themselves. A: (Kathleen Moriarty): Are you suggesting combining the requirements and use case documents? A: (Andrew Mortensen): Not exactly. A: (Kathleen Moriarty): The IESG would prefer less informational requirements/architecture documents 4. Architecture Discussion ========================== Presenter: Andrew Mortensen Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-architecture-draft-ietf-dots- architecture-01-00.pdf Draft: draft-ietf-dots-architecture-01 Mortensen discussed the changes in the -02 draft. Comment: (Roman Danyliw): The text would benefit more discussion of the privacy implications 5. Protocol Drafts ================== draft-reddy-dots-data-channel-04 -------------------------------- Presenter: Tiru Reddy Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-draft-reddy-dots-data- channel-04-00.pdf Reddy presented the -04 changes to the draft. Q: (?): Does RESTCONF support imply full NETCONF use? A: (Tiru Reddy): No, that wouldn't be mandatory Q: (Roman Danyliw): Could you describe the consolidation activities between this -04 version of the draft and draft-teague-dots- protocol-02? A: (Tiru Reddy and Andrew Mortensen): The new changes in this -04 draft address the data channel needs originally described in draft-teague-dots-protocol-01. Therefore, draft-teague-dots-protocol-02 has dropped specification of the data channel. draft-reddy-dots-signal-channel-08 ---------------------------------- Presenter: Tiru Reddy Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-draft-reddy-dots-signal- channel-08-00.pdf Reddy presented the changes to the -08 draft. Comment: (Andrew Mortensen): I like the new CBOR/YANG modeling in this revision. draft-teague-dots-protocol-02 ----------------------------- Presenter: Nik Teague Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-dots-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-dots-01-sessa-draft-teague-dots-protocol-02 -00.pdf Teague presented the changes to the -02 draft and the outstanding tasks. Q: (Susan Hares): How much mitigation information is needed in the signaling protocol? A: (Andrew Mortensen): RESTCONF has a lot of semantics for telemetry. However, the signal channel should remain lightweight. This kind of information should be in the data channel. A; (Susan Hares): There is also work with RESTCONF on pub-sub. Q: (Dave Dolson): is a session really required? A: (Andrew Mortensen): "session" is likely overloaded in the document. We'd like it to be asynchronous with the only overhead being the establishing the DTLS session. 6. Open Mic =========== Q: (Andrew Mortensen): How much does the WG care about QUIC? A: (Roland Dobbins): The question likely needs to be bounded a bit more. A: (Tiru Reddy): There may be concerns using it during attacks (due to fragmentation). A: (Nik Teague): I'm interested. Q: (Susan Hares): As to the signal channels, how much validation do you expect on the message? A: (Tiru Reddy): All COAP validation would occur in the COAP stack (not the DOTS client/server). Q: (Susan Hares): Will the anycast usage be done with no updates? A: (Tiru Reddy): Yes. A: (Andrew Mortensen): There is some language about this topic in the architecture draft. A: (Susan Hares): It would benefit from additional clarity Comment: (Susan Hares): I don't understand how you plan to use events to status to clients -- unicast? anycast? Comment: (Tiru Reddy): How will we perform key management to ensure privacy? 7. Closing ========== Presenters: Roman Danyliw, Tobias Gondrom ** Interim IETF 98 agenda will be published this Friday (2/22/2017) ** Based on the interim agenda, design team meetings during IETF 98 will be scheduled